As the Reston Task Force Turns . . ., A Concerned Restonian

The following is a post submitted by a person who wishes to remain anonymous.  Anonymous contributions are welcome "as long as they are relevant, constructive, and decent."  

We welcome comments, rebuttals, etc., on this letter--including anonymous ones that meet our guidelines.  You may either write a comment at the end of the post or submit your own letter or post. 

Here is the post as provided:

As the Reston Task Force Turns…

 

I have been following the meandering trail of the Reston Master Plan Task Force off and on now throughout its three-year odyssey.  I’ve read the occasional press coverage of the meetings, but it has dwindled as it has become apparent nothing is happening.  I read the Reston 2020 blog, which actually provides some timely information that reflects that group’s views--which I generally share.  I even occasionally visit the County website for the task force effort to catch up, but it's worse than RA's for finding anything.  I’ve even attended meetings I thought might be important, none of which lived up to its promise.  It may actually be worse than watching Congress DO NOTHING and flame on about everything. 

Yet what the task force is SUPPOSED to be doing is very important to Reston’s future.  It is supposed to be developing a plan for growth around Reston’s three new Metrorail stations that (a) offers an opportunity to exploit the economic potential offered by the Silver Line while (b) also meeting the needs and values of the community beyond the station areas. 

It hasn't even come close.  Overall, their focus on allowing large-scale commercial development has overwhelmed any consideration of the needs and values of the rest of the community.

So what has the task force accomplished?

Well, they did pass a vision and planning principles statement a year and a half ago.  Bravo!  It accomplished in about three-dozen pages what Bob Simon accomplished in a half-dozen paragraphs 50 years ago.   Still, I’d have to agree that it’s pretty meaty and hits on key themes important to Reston. 

Two years ago, it created three committees to generate visions of each of the three Silver Line station areas in Reston that produced two and one-half reports. 

--The half report was on the Herndon-Monroe station area and said nothing much is going to change there.  The end.

--The Reston Parkway station report flew off the charts in terms of development potential based on an outdated and outrageously optimistic economic forecast from GMU’s Center for Regional Analysis, the local home of developer-sponsored regional economic research.   (No conflict of interest there.)  

--The Wiehle station group actually sought out a broad range of public inputs and compiled a reasonably balanced report, although it, too, was overly influenced by the excessive GMU growth forecast.  (And why the county staff and task force insisted on using the “high” GMU forecast as the basis of plan development, I’ll never know.)

The good news:  The task force hasn’t yet approved any of the reports, but it could at any time--maybe just to spite the community.

So now what is happening?

When the county examined the traffic impact of the development potential suggested by the three committee reports, the so-called “Scenario E,”  (all these proposals are alphabetized “scenarios,” at least until they run out of alphabet a decade from now) traffic will come to near-complete paralysis in the Reston Parkway and Wiehle station areas during the evening rush hour.   Apparently, there is some county or state limit on just how bad traffic congestion can be allowed to get.  Three and four minute delays at an intersection exceed that requirement.   Oops!

So the planning staff came up with “Scenario G.”  This scenario seems to reduce commercial development, focusing the remainder in the immediate station areas.  It also adds more housing because within a half-mile of the stations because, in general, a better balance between housing and commercial space eases traffic.   So far, however, the planning staff has not detailed the full scope of allowable development so the task force is a little perplexed about just what the staff is proposing.  And the transportation staff won’t have a full assessment of the new proposal for four months!  (Yes, Scenario G could still fail the traffic test!)

But that didn’t matter:  You should’ve heard the crescendo of outraged cries from developers and land use attorneys at the last meeting as some of us did.  This plan would mean no “tear down” and re-building, just less desirable infill construction—if any!—they said.  Limiting development for traffic reasons is “the tail wagging the dog!”—they added.  This will prevent Reston from achieving the visions laid out by the task force’s committees!—they raged.  In the only counterpoint offered, one task force member noted that congestion is a major Reston problem now, not a hypothetical one for the future.

 Is that it?  Isn’t community mobility throughout the entirety of Reston an important quality-of-life issue?  Doesn’t getting from one side of Reston to the other in a car over the Dulles corridor-choked bridges through the station areas mean anything?  If not by car, will local public transit take everyone—including the very young and very old—everywhere they need to go safely anytime they need to go with little delay?  Why should residents be burdened unduly so corporations can make more money?  Why are two-dozen developers being allowed to dictate to 60,000 residents, including some 20,000 property owners, the future of development in the heart of our community?  What are corporations willing to give up to compensate for the additional burden placed on local driving?  (Apparently not density!) 

                . . . And what’s next?

So the drama and tension builds, but the task force won’t meet again until next year.  It’s not clear that any resolution is in sight.  Will the county staff stand firm on meeting some minimal traffic requirements that forces a plan with reduced development potential?  Will the county cave to developer demands for greater development opportunities?  Will the interests of current and future Reston residents even be part of the equation? 

Stay tuned--as the melodrama that is the Reston Task Force turns (ever so slowly and randomly)! 

I don’t know the answer to any of these questions and I am increasingly discouraged that anything good for the Reston community will come out of the task force.  I also can’t imagine being a member and going to all the mindless meetings over the last three years.  It is ugly!  And more balanced Restonians than me aren’t paying any attention to what’s happening.  Maybe I shouldn’t either, but I’ve lived here a long time and I’d like to believe we can build a better Reston, not just a bigger one, for our children and others.   I doubt, however, that will be the outcome, if there ever is one. 

One of my New Year’s resolutions is stop going to any more task force meetings.  They are just two hours or more of my life that I will never get back.  Hopefully, the news media or Reston 2020 will keep me informed on what, if anything happens--ever.  Otherwise, count me out. 

In the meantime, Happy Holidays and a Great New Year to Reston 2020 and all of Reston!

                                                                                                A Concerned Restonian

Notes on RTF Community Meeting on Phase II--Village Centers & Residential Areas, November 16, 2011

                                      R.Rogers

                                      19 Nov 2011

                              

Reston Task Force Community Meeting

Introduction to Phase 2

16 November 2011

     Summary and Comment: Some comment and interpretations concerning Heidi Merkel’s presentation at the 16 November Reston community meeting on Phase 2 have suggested that there is little possibility of significant change in the Reston PRC areas.  In fact, experienced observers of the Reston Master Planning effort believe that the presentation was carefully crafted to give that impression while leaving many options open for significant re-development.  Of particular interest is the lack of clarity about the process that will be employed to incorporate citizens’ views.  Nothing about planning for Reston's village centers and neighborhoods was foreclosed for Phase 2. 

     Heidi’s presentation was a masterful performance of one hour without a break. Her key talking points are available on the county website and have been given some--albeit somewhat misleading--coverage in local newspapers. This review tries to interpret key points made.

     Heidi said the real work on Phase 2 will not begin until late May or June.  She said this meeting is not a “kickoff” but an informational effort to alert Reston residents to what is coming.  She said, optimistically, that Phase 2 could be completed by late fall of 2012.

PRC Residential Areas

     She keyed her comments on this aspect of the study to the theme that residents want “predictability” (significantly, although she briefly mentioned “stability,” she did not key her presentation to that theme, which has a unique—and undesirable from citizens’ perspective-—meaning in the redevelopment lexicon.) She said DPZ senses a “desire for a structured process for considering redevelopment proposals.”  She noted that many areas were not built up to the density of the existing plan.  Medium density areas (mostly townhouses) could be garden style apartments. High density areas are mostly garden apartments rather than the high rises that could have been put there.

     Heidi said there may be utility in redefining some of these areas in accord with what is actually there.  The land use plan “could use more definition.”

     She also noted that the county has existing guidelines) for community redevelopment (an apparent reference to Appendix 8 of the Master Plan).  It requires a high degree of property owner concurrence to make changes.  There is also a need to ensure compatibility of any changes with adjacent areas.

     (Comment: Although she did not explicitly say so, she seemed to be implying that townhouse clusters could turn themselves over to re-developers in certain situations.  She did not mention to the role of the Reston Deed, RA, or the Design Review Board in this process.)

     Important Comment: A version of the Reston “planning principles” was handed out.  It did not include the note appended to the principles approved by the RMPTF concerning the residential areas.  That note, appended by the development community, said the future of the residential areas will be revisited as Part of Phase II.)

Village Centers

     Village Centers will be another focal point of Phase 2.  Heidi noted that Lake Anne contained Robert Simon’s vision of what a village center should be but it has not prospered. She said they could stay as commercial strips or become community gathering places—or conceivably something else.

     She stressed that any changes must be sought by and be initiated by the center’s property owner; but it is not clear what their vision is. She stressed that it will be the property owners who will bring about change. 

     DPZ posted maps of the village centers and Heidi noted that there are some residential areas within these boundaries.  She noted that there are also some residential areas adjacent of village centers and that they “by and large” should be stable.

     She said the village centers could be the subject of a “charrette” bringing in outside design experts to confer with community and property owners. The mention of “charrettes” brought groans from the audience.  Tall Oaks might be a particularly useful subject for this.

     She said the at other commercial areas—the “convenience” and the Home Depot–Trader Joe area will be included in the review but that consideration may well be given to keeping them as they are for the future.

     Population Cap: Early in her presentation, Heidi noted that DPZ will be looking at a 20-year horizon for population change and that in the TOD-Metro station areas--which are outside the PRC--there might be a growth of 35,000 residents. Later in response to a question, she deferred putting forth specific current figures of both population and the cap, saying they will be on the county website.

     She noted, however, that Phase 2 will be looking at options for development that exceed the current cap.  One possibility would be to raise the cap.  Another would be to keep the current 13 people per acre density but evaluate specific areas on a case by case basis.  She said DPZ anticipated a focused community meeting to discuss population levels.  A member of the audience asked what the point was of having a cap if we just keep raising it. 

     Golf Courses: In response to a question at the end of the meeting on Reston National, Heidi said maybe we should think about future development of the golf courses (specifically including Hidden Creek too). (Comment: this was a new idea in the planning process. The Wiehle TOD sub-committee in particular has emphasized the importance of the Golf Courses as a buffer between the TOD and PRC areas.)

     Fairway Apartments and Colvin Run Woods: In response to a question, Heidi said Fairway Apartments will not be left in abeyance until Phase 2 planning is completed since the property owner has existing rights under current zoning.   Colvin Woods, however, may be included in the study.

Phase II Process

     Heidi left open how Phase 2 might proceed.  She said it would be either a Task Force of an “advisory group.”  She implied that the current planning Task Force was a somewhat unwieldy group.

     She said composition of any group is under consideration and no chair was designated. She said the groups would include member of Reston organizations and property owners.   She left unclear what role this group might have in drafting or approving a plan.  However, as noted above, she did speak of some specific community meetings.

     She noted the process may involve some revisions and updates of the existing planning maps to reflect what has happened over the last 40 years and to revise “outdated” concepts.   The transportation map may be revised since it now reflects only roadways and the land use and community facilities map may be combined.

Prepared Reston P&Z Committee Testimony of Robert Goudie, Co-Chair, Town Center Committee, RTF, on Redeveloping Town Center Office Building, November 21, 2011

Testimony of Robert Goudie

To the P&Z Committee, 11/21/11

RE:  Proposed redevelopment of the so-called Town Center Office Building Site

I appear tonight and am speaking from my perspective as Co-Chair of the Town Center Committee of the Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force.

At the outset, I want to thank Rick Whealen and his team, who generously offered to meet with me not once but twice to provide background on their proposal.  That proposal has elements that should be lauded and I do not wish to minimize those – including the green rooftop space, the concealed parking, the likely gold LEEDS achievement, and the earnest attempt to create a world-class design.  The proposal, however, is materially inconsistent with the Town Center Committee recommendations:

1.      The lack of any residential component is at odds with the Committee recommendation that every zoning application be at least 1:1 SF res:office (and, outside the urban core, which this site is, a ratio even more favorably balanced toward residential should be encouraged):  This 1:1 requirement has received a good deal of attention and I’ve talked about it at a prior P&Z meeting.  It is at the heart of the Town Center Committee’s vision for a greater mix of uses with a stronger residential component to continue Town Center’s build-out as both Reston’s downtown and a regional destination.  Worth noting:

a.      The Committee unanimously rejected a Whealen Team request to be exempted from the residential requirement.  Page 31 of the report speaks to the “form[ation of] an important and essentially residential collar around the extended urban core (with supporting retail),” adding that in these areas “development that moves the Town Center District beyond the minimum 1:1 ratio we are recommending . . . should be encouraged.”  In response to a Whealen Team request the Committee very specifically and unanimously declined to exempt the Office Building Site from this approach:

“We include within this reference the so-called Reston Office Building parcel that abuts Reston Parkway and is otherwise surrounded by the Spectrum parcel.  This parcel is not currently within the Town Center District boundary.  We think that parcel should be allowed to redevelop in ways that are consistent with and complement the approved Spectrum concept plan (if/as it may be amended) and the Committee’s recommendations for an essentially residential collar (with supporting retail) around the extended urban core.”  (emphases added)

Simply put, this proposal is not consistent with that recommendation.

b.      The Committee extended the 1:1 or better requirement to all “zoning applications,” thus providing smaller sites a partnering opportunity to achieve the desired balancing.  The Committee felt strongly that the residential requirement must extend to all lots consistent with a philosophy that “we are all in this together” and that all new development must share in the responsibility of bringing better residential:office balance to Town Center.  It recognized, however, that this could create challenges, especially for smaller lots with existing and profitable commercial buildings or development rights.  The Committee also heard from County Staff about compulsory joint zoning as a method used in some other areas in the County.  The Committee had concerns that compulsory collaborative zoning might hurt first movers.  Thus we recommended a different approach:  the 1:1 or better requirement would extend to “any zoning application.”  This essentially incents a collaborative or partnering approach if owners feel individual lots could not easily meet the balancing requirement or that shifting the balancing over a broader area (and thus permitting some single or near-single uses on individual lots) could produce better outcomes. 

That opportunity clearly exists here, most obviously with the adjacent Lerner (Spectrum) property.  (Indeed, with both Lerner and Whealen spending money now on concept plans, the first mover challenge some see with compulsory joint zoning is not extant.)  And if a Whealen-Lerner partnership is not possible for business or other reasons, there are other sites nearby (including the Inova site in Town Center North) that provide partnering opportunities.

Enforcement of this strong encouragement to partner could have powerful benefits for the community.  Not only does it ensure that all lot owners are part of the residential balancing vision, but it also opens the door to more creative and powerful concept plans.  Taking off my Committee hat and speaking now personally, a number of Town Center residents are not enthusiastic about the proposed Spectrum concept plan.  We feel the original Lerner proposal – with a central boulevard bisecting that lot around which retail, open space, residential, and office could be clustered – was a much more interesting outcome than what has been approved.  But that proposal would implicate the Whealen parcel, requiring collaboration between the two land owners.  Although that outcome could not be forced under the Committee approach there would be consequences to going it alone:  neither would be able to get out from under the residential requirement (and the Spectrum proposal I believe meets the test with something like a 1.3 or 1.4:1 res:office ratio).  The proposal before you has no residential component and will, therefore, materially dilute and make more difficult the overall balancing the Committee report contemplates.  Simply put, that would not be allowed under the Committee approach which, if strongly enforced, would change development behavior over time.

2.      The proposal is inconsistent with the tapering of heights and densities the Committee recommends:  The Committee unanimously recommends tapering building heights and densities moving north away from the envisioned Metro Station:

“These areas [to the north outside the urban core] are currently zoned at 50 dwelling units per acre.  Residential development that moves the Town Center District beyond the minimum 1:1 ratio we are recommending for Metro North should be encouraged.  Among other incentives the County should consider are permitting density increments above those currently allowed (staying within the tapered approach we are recommending, with highest densities adjacent to the Metro Station and gradually tapering off as one moves north).  Any such incremental increases should be used primarily to encourage additional residential (with supporting retail as needed) to continue to shrink the current disparity between available jobs and resident potential workers.” (p. 31 of the Committee Report, emphases added)  The Committee then added that building heights should not be static in particular areas, providing a variegated look and feel. 

Very specific guidance was given for Town Center North, which is on the same longitudinal plane as the Office Building Site:  “consistent with our view that TCN should be a transitional space (not an extension of the Town Center urban core), a consensus emerged that building heights across TCN should not be permitted to exceed 200’ above grade.”  (p. 36)

I think there is a material question as to whether the current proposal is proportional to its surroundings (it is materially higher than anything in the proposed Spectrum redevelopment).  And at 23 stories and a 4.08 FAR this would I think exceed the height and massing the Committee recommends for this area.

3.      The proposal undermines TOD (transit-oriented development) objectives the Town Center Committee sought to emphasize:  All data the Task Force has seen emphasizes that the number of people willing to walk to a job from a transit station dramatically declines for jobs located outside the station’s ¼ mile radius, and declines again when one moves outside the ½ mile radius (as the Office Building site is).  This was among the principal reasons that the Committee recommended congregating the greatest office densities nearest to the station and increasing the residential component in the collar surrounding the extended urban core – to encourage greater TOD.  The proposal before you argues for putting +/- 2,000 jobs in an essentially single-use (non-residential) development outside the ½ mile radius.  The impacts to traffic and the overall balancing goals for Town Center are meaningful.

Worth adding here is that the Whealen Team noted in its meetings with me that this lot was originally envisioned as the “gateway” site into Town Center.  Whatever may have been the vision in the 1970’s, a material change in conditions has emerged – the arrival of Metro at Town Center.  There is no question but that the center of gravity in Town Center over the next 25 years will shift toward the Metro Station.  And this is an essential goal of the Town Center Committee report.  The Committee specifically notes that Parcel D4, as the gateway or touchdown point north of the Metro, “will be of special significance” (page 3), adding later that the “key to realizing a vision of an extended urban core will be the development of D4” (page 19).   On page 18 the Committee emphasized the essential priority thusly:  “The focus first and foremost should be on successfully extending the urban core south to the Metro station.  Good things will follow from that.”   

Whatever may have been the original vision for the Office Building Site that vision has been materially altered with the pending arrival of Metro.  I do not want to be misunderstood:  I absolutely believe that redevelopment of the Office Building Site is and should remain an important goal for Town Center’s future and the Whealen Team should be congratulated for thinking boldly about that future.  But that vision should be consistent with and complementary to the Town Center North area and the TOD and other goals we wish for Town Center’s dynamic future.

Conclusion

I return where I started:  there is much about this proposal that should be lauded.  Rick Whealen, very much to his credit, has put together a terrific team of world-class professionals who are thinking boldly about this site and have offered some really important pieces that advance community priorities (the green space, the concealed parking, retail, the LEEDS emphasis, and the bold design among them).  But the fundamental thrust remains inconsistent with the visions for Town Center that our Committee put together.  (Of course the County would always have flexibility to adopt proposals that depart from the Comprehensive Plan vision if the proposal serves compelling public needs, a judgment for others to make here.)

To be sure our Committee recommendations have not yet been adopted by the Task Force let alone become law.  Some recommendations are still very much in flux (for example, the density recommendations).  But the big-picture concepts I have talked about tonight are, in material respects, likely to become part of the revised Comprehensive Plan. 

I also understand that certain development opportunities may exist by-right on the Office Building Site.  That said, there are strong community interests at stake here as well and material changes in conditions (Metro) that it seems to me have to be accounted for.  My hope is that a thoughtful conversation be had, respectful of whatever property rights might already exist and perhaps involving neighboring owners, whereby an outcome that better complements the goals I’ve talked about tonight could be achieved. 

I will be sending the entire Town Center Committee a copy of these remarks.  I will encourage any of my Committee colleagues who feels these remarks do not accurately summarize the Committee recommendations to offer his/her own comments to the P&Z Committee.  Thank you for your consideration of the Committee’s work.

 

Agenda: RTF Steering Committee Meeting, September 7, 2011

Update:  DPZ has added a brief discussion of a second, residentially-oriented development scenario for traffic analysis.   

RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY TASK FORCE

Co-Chairs’ Steering Sub-Committee Meeting

North County Government Center, 12000 Bowman Towne Drive

Wednesday, September 7, 2011 – 7:00-9:30 p.m.

AGENDA

7:00 p.m.             Administrative Items Patty Nicoson, Chair

7:10 p.m.             Public Comment

7:15 p.m.             Review of allocation of GMU 2030 High +20% forecast (forecast as defined at June 7, 2011 Steering Sub-committee – 2030 High forecast for non-residential and 2030 High + 20% for residential)

•          Wiehle

•          Herndon-Mornoe

•          Town Center
 

7:45 p.m. Update on second scenario with greater proportion of residential for impact analysis 

8:00 p.m.             Discussion of Vision Sub-committee Report and Checklist

•          Transportation section

•          Open Space section

9:15 p.m.             Next Meeting

•          Date:  TBD

•          Location:  TBD

9:30 p.m.             Adjourn, Patty Nicoson

Notes on the RTF Steering Committee Meeting, March 29, 2011, Dick Rogers

UPDATE:   See end of this meeting report for information on the final 10 minutes of this meeting.

                                       30 March 2011

                                       R. Rogers

    

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING: 29 March 2011

     Summary:  Perhaps because committee attendance was so poor, not a lot was accomplished and many issues discussed were just rehash.  The DPZ handouts on “TOD planning objectives” and the Wiehle station area were noteworthy because they highlighted some important issues.

     Attendance: The poorest attendance of any SC I have been to (Nicoson, Penniman, Goudie, Riegle, Van Foster, Looney). Usual three DPZ staffers plus Fred Selden and Goldie Harrison continues to show importance DPZ extends to this group.

     Admin: Patti Nicoson noted some of the various meetings she has been to.  She also noted that FC BOS has endorsed station names (see this post). She added that a judge has ruled that MWAA is not subject to Virginia FOIA laws!

     TOD “Planning Objectives”

     Heidi Merkel, DPZ staff, passed out a set of TOD planning objectives to the committee (hopefully will be on the FC website soon).  (NOTE: We will update this post when they are available.  The two presentations used by the Steering Committee, both very informational, are posted at the following links:

•  Commercial and Residential Balance
•  Reston TOD Planning Objectives and Approaches

 They are noteworthy because they emphasize some important objectives lost in the TOD sub-committee (subcom) reports and suggest approaches that may be needed to achieve them.     Some of the 8 “objectives” and approaches:

• Highest FARs for mixed use redevelopment rather than just in-fill development
• High quality access to station platforms. Links higher office development to good access portals (presumably this has in mind South side Wiehle and south TC stations.  I also asked if she had North side of Herndon in mind.)
• Specific “location” for civic and cultural facilities incented by higher FARs.
• “Designated” open space areas
• Link increased development potential to contributions to improve area wide transportation network.

Comment: These “objectives” to a large degree complement the “Planning Principles” approved at the 15 March TF meeting. They get close to thinking about how proffers and FARs can be linked to implementation.  There was little discussion of this handout by committee members.

    

Wiehle Station

     The bulk of the meeting was focused on Heidi’s handouts on the Wiehle station area.  They included charts with Wiehle subcom proposed developments and jobs and housing balance. They also featured several slides and maps that emphasized key Wiehle issues:  

• More office development close to station, mixed use elsewhere, except predominantly residential in Issac Newton Sq.
• Property owner contributions to Reston Station Blvd (north side of immediate station area), the grid and W&OD overpass.
• The need for a Soapstone extension sooner (suggesting land and financial contributions from developers).
• The urgent need for south side Wiehle bus and kiss and ride access from South Reston (in Vornado land).

Some discussion was old hat.  Were the TOD circles based on the platform location or the touch downs on each side (answer: the former). Some chiding that TOD circles do not match up with land bays.

     The time horizon of 20 years for projected development was questioned.  Basically, developers see only part of this development potential being achieved in the 20-year period.  The question is do we want to increase the level of development over 20 years projected by an “X” factor to encourage development within the timeframe.  No decision taken.

     Transportation: Heidi noted that analysis already shows considerable congestion at the current development level. How will a 50-60% increase impact this?

     She also expressed concern that planning and the desire to get needed proffers for Soapstone and other things not provide incentives for too much office development outside the core station area.

     Mark Looney, as he has done before, noted that there will be a need for substantially increased office development in the Dulles transit corridor if projected GMU FC job growth is to be accommodated. Fred Selden, head of DPZ, downplayed this, saying there now is considerable development potential in other FC areas as well as in the corridor.

     Fred Selden also raised the rarely discussed issue of projecting substantial high-rise residential development.  He noted this ignored the fact that there is a limited market (youngsters and oldsters) for such housing. He noted that many assume residential needs can be met by pushing up density through high rises, but that this creates a limited market. He was concerned that too much of this type of housing cannot be absorbed.

     Robert Goudie briefly raised the issue of more residential development at Wiehle but this was not pursued. Greg Riegel expressed frustration at the slow pace of progress.

     (At this point--9:10PM--I had to leave and I missed the conclusion of the meeting.)

UPDATE:  

Two attendees have passed on word of what happened in the last ten minutes of the SC mtg on 29 March after I left.

 

    More discussion but no great points made.

 

    Mark Looney and Greg Riegle offered to come up with revised material apparently relating to Wiehle station. This was accepted.    During the discussion they had been very concerned that the figures tabled by DPZ and the Wiehle committee did not provide enough excess (presumably FARs and people) to encourage developers to re-develop existing properties.  They spoke of the need for a "X" factor to be built into the plan.

 

    If this is what their contribution will be, it bears watching.  The idea of a "plan" with "excess" built in does not make a lot of sense to me (one of the justifications of the Town Center com for their 5 FARs is the need for "excess" to encourage development).

Herndon-Monroe Metro: Will Sunrise Valley Drive Become a 'Grand Green Boulevard'? Also, Polo Fields HOA Would Like The Parking Somewhere Else, Please, Restonian, October 27, 2010

This from the Restonian's take on the RTF Herndon-Monroe Committee presentation:

And you thought our Google Map annotations were amateurish! As it did with the Wiehle Avenue and Reston Parkway stations, the Master Plan Task Force We're Tired of Abbreviating (MPTFWTA) issued its own report on future development around the Herndon-Monroe station. That subcommittee envisions that the area will become "less dense than Reston Parkway with more local serving retail" (translation: fewer cupcakeries, more 7-11s)....

Restonian notes the nearby Polo Fields HOA opposition to an additional parking garage there, including:

...the HOA suggests, among other things, limiting future access to the station from Sunrise Valley Drive to buses, while getting the town of Herndon to focus on building its own fancy garage, assuming it can divert its attention from other more entertaining matters.

 Read the rest of Restonian's thoughts on the Herndon-Monroe station area developments by linking here.